So, we have different examples in scripture that there's obviously a lot of contextual issues at work here. On the one hand, I think we're clearly prohibited from from personal rebellion I think that's what Romans 13 is about you as an individual You don't get to just decide to take up arms and overthrow your government or something. And of course, we're talking worst-case scenario I think scripture clearly forbids personal rebellion, but that doesn't mean that you're required to obey every evil command of a tyrannical government. There is a place for proper civil disobedience. Daniel and his friends said, no, we won't eat the king's meat.

Now they were able to negotiate in a sense, and they were able to show that our way of doing things is actually going to work out better and it did. That may not always be the case, but the scripture I think gives us a pattern of as much as possible working in the system that you're in. Paul was able to appeal to his Roman citizenship. At the same time, Paul was executed by that same Roman government. So there is a balance, might not be the right word, but there is this measure of we work in the system as much as we can, but at the end of the day, we stand up with Peter and say, no, we have to obey God rather than men.

No matter what you decide to do to me, I have to obey God. That's my ultimate priority. I will obey the laws of the land as much as possible, but I have to obey God. And when God and the state conflict, You have to side with God's law, not man's law.